Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'No disk access,' which tells the agent this is not an actual filesystem check. However, it does not explain what 'looks safe' means, whether it returns a boolean or throws, or what happens on invalid input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. 'Check whether a path looks safe' states the purpose, and 'No disk access' adds needed scope. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple in intent but has a noisy schema with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not clarify which parameter(s) to use, what the return value looks like, or why the unrelated parameters are present. An agent could easily pass the wrong parameter or expect disk-level validation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters in the schema have descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description references 'a path' and matches the `path` parameter description, but it adds no additional parameter-level meaning. It also fails to clarify that the other six schema parameters appear unrelated to a file-path check, leaving ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also adds a meaningful qualifier, 'No disk access,' which clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish from, but the path-focused wording separates it from URL-oriented siblings like browser-url-ok and playwright-url-ok.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'No disk access' implies it is a lightweight shape check rather than a filesystem operation, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another sibling should be chosen. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.